Lost on the garden path: Lost on the garden path: Exploring Exploring

misinterpretation and misinterpretation and “good enough” language “good enough” language

processingprocessing

Kiel ChristiansonKiel Christianson

Dept. of Educational Psychology Dept. of Educational Psychology

& Beckman Institute& Beckman Institute

CollaboratorsCollaborators

Fernanda FerreiraFernanda Ferreira Carrick WilliamsCarrick Williams Andrew HollingworthAndrew Hollingworth Rose ZacksRose Zacks Tim SlatteryTim Slattery Susan GarnseySusan Garnsey Laura MatzenLaura Matzen RAs in my lab (Kent Lee, Jeong Ah Shin, Ji RAs in my lab (Kent Lee, Jeong Ah Shin, Ji

Kim, Jung Hyun Lim, Heeyoun Cho)Kim, Jung Hyun Lim, Heeyoun Cho)

So we don’t get lost ourselves,So we don’t get lost ourselves,a brief mapa brief map

1.1. What are garden path sentences?What are garden path sentences?And why are they interesting?And why are they interesting?

2.2. Why worry about interpretation?Why worry about interpretation?And why haven’t other psycholinguists until recently?And why haven’t other psycholinguists until recently?

3.3. Basic dataBasic dataChristianson, Hollingworth, Halliwell, & Ferreira (2001)Christianson, Hollingworth, Halliwell, & Ferreira (2001)Christianson, Williams, Zacks, & Ferreira (in press)Christianson, Williams, Zacks, & Ferreira (in press)

4.4. Recent dataRecent dataChristianson & Slattery (2005, in prep)Christianson & Slattery (2005, in prep)Christianson (still running!)Christianson (still running!)

5.5. Some semblance of a conclusion, I hope…Some semblance of a conclusion, I hope…A working definition of “good enough”A working definition of “good enough”Parsing, processing, and interpretationParsing, processing, and interpretationImplications Implications

What relevance to SLA?What relevance to SLA?

Theoretical: Do L2 speakers parse L2 Theoretical: Do L2 speakers parse L2 same as L1 speakers do?same as L1 speakers do?

Pedagogical: Misinterpretations can Pedagogical: Misinterpretations can be informative wrt mental be informative wrt mental representationsrepresentations– You don’t know for sure unless you ask!You don’t know for sure unless you ask!

Garden path sentencesGarden path sentences

Sentences that lead the human Sentences that lead the human sentence processor (HSP) to sentence processor (HSP) to construct an initial syntactic construct an initial syntactic structure, which turns out to be structure, which turns out to be incorrect, and thus requires syntactic incorrect, and thus requires syntactic (and semantic) reanalysis.(and semantic) reanalysis.

ExampleExample

While While

While Anna While Anna

While Anna dressed While Anna dressed

While Anna dressed the While Anna dressed the

While Anna dressed the baby While Anna dressed the baby

While Anna dressed the baby spit While Anna dressed the baby spit

While Anna dressed the baby spit up While Anna dressed the baby spit up

While Anna dressed the baby spit up While Anna dressed the baby spit up on on

While Anna dressed the baby spit up While Anna dressed the baby spit up on the on the

While Anna dressed the baby spit up While Anna dressed the baby spit up on the bed.on the bed.

While Anna dressed While Anna dressed the babythe baby spit upspit up on the on the bed.bed.

the baby = ambiguous noun phrase the baby = ambiguous noun phrase (ambiguous region)(ambiguous region)

spit up = disambiguating verb spit up = disambiguating verb (disambiguating region)(disambiguating region)

Why use sentences like Why use sentences like this?this?

They induce difficulty and observable They induce difficulty and observable slow-downs in processing that is slow-downs in processing that is normally smooth and fastnormally smooth and fast– Point is to observe how the system is Point is to observe how the system is

perturbed, and how it recoversperturbed, and how it recovers

Not all suffer from “mistakes” Not all suffer from “mistakes” – Put the book on the shelf in my Put the book on the shelf in my

backpack.backpack.

Frazier & Rayner (1982)Frazier & Rayner (1982) The “garden path theory” of syntactic The “garden path theory” of syntactic

parsingparsing– Eye-tracking used to measure how people read Eye-tracking used to measure how people read

such sentencessuch sentences– Predictable patterns:Predictable patterns:

Longer fixations (reading times) on disambiguating verbLonger fixations (reading times) on disambiguating verb Regressive eye movements to ambiguous NP and Regressive eye movements to ambiguous NP and

subordinate verb (subordinate verb (dresseddressed))

Serial, modular modelSerial, modular model– one parse at a time, just syntax firstone parse at a time, just syntax first– (But this architecture isn’t crucial for (But this architecture isn’t crucial for

assumptions that follow.)assumptions that follow.)

Traditional assumptions Traditional assumptions (no matter what parsing (no matter what parsing

model)model) Garden path sentences can be Garden path sentences can be

handled one of two wayshandled one of two ways

1.1. Mis-parse is recognized by the HSP, Mis-parse is recognized by the HSP, revision is undertaken; if not revision is undertaken; if not successful, processor gives up and successful, processor gives up and interpretation is not achievedinterpretation is not achieved

2.2. Ambiguity/mis-parse isn’t noticed at Ambiguity/mis-parse isn’t noticed at all; person just keeps readingall; person just keeps reading

Questioning traditional Questioning traditional assumptionsassumptions

Does the mis-parse HAVE to be reanalyzed Does the mis-parse HAVE to be reanalyzed syntactically?syntactically?

Does the interpretation HAVE to be revised?Does the interpretation HAVE to be revised?– Automatic?Automatic?– MacDonald et al. (1994): There might be MacDonald et al. (1994): There might be

situations in which “the communicative goals of situations in which “the communicative goals of the listener can be achieved with only a partial the listener can be achieved with only a partial analysis of a sentence, but we view these as analysis of a sentence, but we view these as degenerate cases” (p. 686). degenerate cases” (p. 686). (An assumption made by proponents of both serial and (An assumption made by proponents of both serial and

parallel models of parsing)parallel models of parsing)

““Good enough” Good enough” sentence processingsentence processing

Ferreira & Henderson (1999); Christianson, Ferreira & Henderson (1999); Christianson, et al (2001); Ferreira, Christianson, & et al (2001); Ferreira, Christianson, & Hollingworth (2001); Ferreira, Bailey, & Hollingworth (2001); Ferreira, Bailey, & Ferraro (2003); Christianson, et al (in press)Ferraro (2003); Christianson, et al (in press)

Loosely defined as processing in which the Loosely defined as processing in which the HSP settles for a parse that is in some way HSP settles for a parse that is in some way incomplete or underspecified, resulting in an incomplete or underspecified, resulting in an interpretation that is not faithful to the input.interpretation that is not faithful to the input.

So why worry about So why worry about interpretation?interpretation?

““The central problem for future The central problem for future theories of sentence processing is … theories of sentence processing is … the development of theories of the development of theories of sentence interpretation.” sentence interpretation.”

--Frazier (1998)--Frazier (1998)

(Besides, isn’t the whole point of (Besides, isn’t the whole point of language to derive meaning?)language to derive meaning?)

How do we go about studying How do we go about studying interpretation?interpretation?

Traditionally, we don’t.Traditionally, we don’t.– comprehension question for every 4comprehension question for every 4thth sentence sentence

or so, just to make sure they’re not zoning outor so, just to make sure they’re not zoning out

While the man hunted the deer that was brown While the man hunted the deer that was brown and graceful ran into the woods.and graceful ran into the woods.

Q: Was the deer brown? OR Q: Was the deer brown? OR

Was the deer in the woods?Was the deer in the woods?

Key Q (never asked): Was the man hunting the Key Q (never asked): Was the man hunting the deer?deer?

What happens to the What happens to the interpretation generated by interpretation generated by

the initial mis-parse?the initial mis-parse?

Does it linger?Does it linger? Does it just disappear?Does it just disappear? Can it block a full reanalysis?Can it block a full reanalysis? Can it cause interpretive difficulties Can it cause interpretive difficulties

even after the rest of the sentence is even after the rest of the sentence is read?read?

Christianson, Hollingworth, Christianson, Hollingworth, Halliwell, & Ferreira (2001)Halliwell, & Ferreira (2001)

What happens to that original, incorrect What happens to that original, incorrect interpretation derived from the initial, partial, and interpretation derived from the initial, partial, and ultimately incorrect parse?ultimately incorrect parse?– If syntax (and, it is generally assumed, consequently If syntax (and, it is generally assumed, consequently

semantics) fully reanalyzed, it should not influence final semantics) fully reanalyzed, it should not influence final interpretationinterpretation

Major assumption: If interpretation is incorrect, Major assumption: If interpretation is incorrect, then full reanalysis has not taken place.then full reanalysis has not taken place.– Syntactic representation remains incomplete, and thus Syntactic representation remains incomplete, and thus

the interpretation is incorrectthe interpretation is incorrect– Might be too strong: Maybe syntax OK, semantics never Might be too strong: Maybe syntax OK, semantics never

fixedfixed

Expt. 1bExpt. 1b

(1a) While Bill hunted the deer (that was (1a) While Bill hunted the deer (that was brown and graceful) ran into the woods.brown and graceful) ran into the woods.

(1b) While Bill hunted the deer (that was (1b) While Bill hunted the deer (that was brown and graceful) paced in the zoo. brown and graceful) paced in the zoo. (implausible)(implausible)

(1c) While Bill hunted the pheasant the deer (1c) While Bill hunted the pheasant the deer (that was brown and graceful) ran into the (that was brown and graceful) ran into the woods. (non-GP)woods. (non-GP)

How to judge interpretation?How to judge interpretation?

Radical: Just ask.Radical: Just ask.

Q: Did Bill hunt the deer?Q: Did Bill hunt the deer?

Yes=INCORRECT No=CORRECTYes=INCORRECT No=CORRECT

Results Expt. 1bResults Expt. 1bAlso gatheredconfidence ratings;No diff. in any conditionin any expt.VERY confident.

Expt. 2Expt. 2 Maybe no reanalysis at all?Maybe no reanalysis at all? Maybe just inference (despite the length of Maybe just inference (despite the length of

ambiguous region effect in 1b)?ambiguous region effect in 1b)?

(2a) While Bill hunted the brown and (2a) While Bill hunted the brown and graceful deer/the deer that was brown and graceful deer/the deer that was brown and graceful ran into the woods.graceful ran into the woods.

(2b) The brown and graceful deer/the deer (2b) The brown and graceful deer/the deer that was brown and graceful ran into the that was brown and graceful ran into the woods while Bill hunted.woods while Bill hunted.

Another question, tooAnother question, too

Did Bill hunt the deer? Did Bill hunt the deer?

(subordinate clause question)(subordinate clause question)

OROR

Did the deer run into the woods?Did the deer run into the woods?

(matrix clause question)(matrix clause question)

Expt. 2 resultsExpt. 2 results

Expt. 3Expt. 3

So far, baseline inference, but syntactic So far, baseline inference, but syntactic manipulations push effect around manipulations push effect around above and beyond inference.above and beyond inference.– Conclusion: Syntax not fully reanalyzedConclusion: Syntax not fully reanalyzed– Yet…Wouldn’t it be nice to find a syntactic Yet…Wouldn’t it be nice to find a syntactic

structure that, if fully reanalyzed, would structure that, if fully reanalyzed, would NOT ALLOW THE INFERENCE?NOT ALLOW THE INFERENCE?

Reflexive absolute transitive (RAT) Reflexive absolute transitive (RAT) verbsverbs

RAT verbsRAT verbs

While Anna dressed the baby that was While Anna dressed the baby that was cute and cuddly spit up on the bed.cute and cuddly spit up on the bed.

If fully reanalyzed, Anna CANNOT be If fully reanalyzed, Anna CANNOT be dressing the baby; must be dressing dressing the baby; must be dressing HERSELF.HERSELF.

Results Expt. 3a-bResults Expt. 3a-b

ConclusionConclusion

““Good enough” sentence processingGood enough” sentence processing Syntactic parse not fully reanalyzedSyntactic parse not fully reanalyzed

– If it is, it’s not mapped onto semanticsIf it is, it’s not mapped onto semantics Processor happy with incomplete Processor happy with incomplete

analysis as long as it is plausible.analysis as long as it is plausible.– Likely: “the deer” overtly serves as Likely: “the deer” overtly serves as

subject of matrix clause, remains subject of matrix clause, remains syntactically present as object of syntactically present as object of subordinate.subordinate.

Older vs. younger readersOlder vs. younger readersChristianson, Williams, Zacks & Christianson, Williams, Zacks &

Ferreira Ferreira (in press, (in press, Discourse ProcessesDiscourse Processes))

Perhaps misinterpretation effect Perhaps misinterpretation effect larger for older readers?larger for older readers?– Caused by decrement in inhibitory Caused by decrement in inhibitory

control in older folks (Hamm & Hasher, control in older folks (Hamm & Hasher, 1992; Hasher, Zacks, & May, 1999)1992; Hasher, Zacks, & May, 1999)

– Older readers might even be worse at Older readers might even be worse at inhibiting initial incorrect parse.inhibiting initial incorrect parse.

Expt. 1Expt. 1 OPT verbs Garden path Structure (subordinate-main clause OPT verbs Garden path Structure (subordinate-main clause

order)order)– While the man hunted the deer that was brown and graceful ran While the man hunted the deer that was brown and graceful ran

into the woods.into the woods. Non-garden path Structure (main-subordinate clause order) Non-garden path Structure (main-subordinate clause order)

– The deer that was brown and graceful ran into the woods while The deer that was brown and graceful ran into the woods while the man hunted.the man hunted.

Q: Did the man hunt the deer? Q: Did the man hunt the deer?

RAT: Garden path Structure (subordinate-main clause order) RAT: Garden path Structure (subordinate-main clause order) – While Anna dressed the baby that was small and cute played in While Anna dressed the baby that was small and cute played in

the crib.the crib. Non-garden path Structure (main-subordinate clause order) Non-garden path Structure (main-subordinate clause order)

– The baby that was small and cute played in the crib while Anna The baby that was small and cute played in the crib while Anna dressed.dressed.

Q: Did Anna dress the baby? Q: Did Anna dress the baby?

Results Expt. 1Results Expt. 1

Reading span correlationsReading span correlations

Expt. 2Expt. 2

Maybe olders more likely to infer Maybe olders more likely to infer (Hartmann & Hasher, 1991)(Hartmann & Hasher, 1991)– OPT verbs allow inference; RAT do notOPT verbs allow inference; RAT do not

If so, should see exaggerated effect in If so, should see exaggerated effect in plausible conditions for older readersplausible conditions for older readers

Also manipulated length of ambiguous Also manipulated length of ambiguous region to see if longer-held region to see if longer-held interpretations harder to inhibitinterpretations harder to inhibit

SentencesSentences Long Ambiguous Region -- Plausible/Implausible Long Ambiguous Region -- Plausible/Implausible Garden path Structure (subordinate-main clause order) Garden path Structure (subordinate-main clause order)

– While the man hunted the deer that was brown and graceful While the man hunted the deer that was brown and graceful ran into the woods/paced in the zoo.ran into the woods/paced in the zoo.

Non-garden path Structure (main-subordinate clause order) Non-garden path Structure (main-subordinate clause order) – The deer that was brown and graceful ran into the The deer that was brown and graceful ran into the

woods/paced in the zoo while the man hunted.woods/paced in the zoo while the man hunted.

Short Ambiguous Region -- Plausible/Implausible Short Ambiguous Region -- Plausible/Implausible Garden path Structure (subordinate-main clause order) Garden path Structure (subordinate-main clause order)

– While the man hunted the deer ran into the woods/paced in While the man hunted the deer ran into the woods/paced in the zoo.the zoo.

Non-garden path Structure (main-subordinate clause order) Non-garden path Structure (main-subordinate clause order) – The deer ran into the woods/paced in the zoo while the man The deer ran into the woods/paced in the zoo while the man

hunted. hunted.

Results, Expt. 2Results, Expt. 2

Main effects of ambiguous NP length, Main effects of ambiguous NP length, plausibility, and ageplausibility, and age

BUT:BUT:– Age did not modulate the effect of Age did not modulate the effect of

plausibility (plausibility (F1F1<1; <1; F2F2<1) nor did it <1) nor did it influence the effect of ambiguous NP influence the effect of ambiguous NP length (length (F1F1<1; <1; F2F2<1). <1).

– As in Expt 1, age didn’t interact with As in Expt 1, age didn’t interact with sentence structure, either.sentence structure, either.

Not inhibition or inferenceNot inhibition or inference

As far as we can tell, anywayAs far as we can tell, anyway– Maybe no inhibition required? Never an Maybe no inhibition required? Never an

alternative full parse/interpretation alternative full parse/interpretation constructed?constructed? Very “good enough-y”Very “good enough-y”

If inference not the issue either why If inference not the issue either why better at RATs than OPTs?better at RATs than OPTs?

Maybe they aren’t….Maybe they aren’t….

Expt. 3Expt. 3

RAT sentencesRAT sentences

While Anna dressed the baby that was While Anna dressed the baby that was cute and cuddly spit up on the bed.cute and cuddly spit up on the bed.

Another question: Another question: Did Anna dress Did Anna dress herself?herself?

(Answer should be YES!)(Answer should be YES!)

Results Expt. 3Results Expt. 3

(nGP: The baby…spit up…while Anna dressed.)

WM correlations with wrong WM correlations with wrong answer rate in Expt. 3answer rate in Expt. 3

ExplanationExplanation

OPT verbs: Two ways to answer “Did OPT verbs: Two ways to answer “Did the man hunt the deer?”the man hunt the deer?”– Recall verbatim and figure outRecall verbatim and figure out– Recall propositional contentRecall propositional content

The man hunted the deer (initial parse)The man hunted the deer (initial parse) The man hunted [SOMETHING unspecified]The man hunted [SOMETHING unspecified]

– Congruent with OPT verbsCongruent with OPT verbs– Olders more likely to rely on “gist” Olders more likely to rely on “gist”

(=propositional) rather than verbatim (=propositional) rather than verbatim contentcontent

RATRAT

Propositional contentPropositional content– Anna dressed the baby (initial)Anna dressed the baby (initial)– Anna dressed [SOMETHING specific]Anna dressed [SOMETHING specific]

But what?But what?

Semantics of RAT verbs don’t allow Semantics of RAT verbs don’t allow congruency of propositional contentcongruency of propositional content– ““dress” doesn’t allow unspecified interpretationdress” doesn’t allow unspecified interpretation

In order to get reflexive reading, must In order to get reflexive reading, must reactive syntax to establish government reactive syntax to establish government relation and co-indexationrelation and co-indexation

WM tie-inWM tie-in

Olders with less WM resources unable Olders with less WM resources unable to reactivate the syntactic structure to reactivate the syntactic structure required to get the reflexive reading.required to get the reflexive reading.

Processor may settle on good enough Processor may settle on good enough interpretation, but to answer the interpretation, but to answer the question, you need more than thatquestion, you need more than that– If not enough working memory available If not enough working memory available

to either keep working on structure or to either keep working on structure or recall, recompute, and revise, then stuck.recall, recompute, and revise, then stuck.

Christianson & Slattery Christianson & Slattery (2005)(2005)

No one has ever looked to see if No one has ever looked to see if garden paths affect SUBSEQUENT garden paths affect SUBSEQUENT readingreading– Why should they? Recall traditional Why should they? Recall traditional

assumptions.assumptions. If “good enough” processing takes If “good enough” processing takes

place, should see people moving on place, should see people moving on to read subsequent text before to read subsequent text before they’ve completed a full reanalysis.they’ve completed a full reanalysis.

MethodMethod Context AFTER garden path sentence (eye-Context AFTER garden path sentence (eye-

tracking)tracking)

opening region S1 | ambiguous NP1 regionopening region S1 | ambiguous NP1 regionWhile the man hunted(,) | the deer that wasWhile the man hunted(,) | the deer that was

| disambiguation| disambiguationlarge and brown | ran into the woods.large and brown | ran into the woods.

opening region S2 | NP2 regionopening region S2 | NP2 region The man was hunting | a deer (bear) in the The man was hunting | a deer (bear) in the

woods.woods.

ResultsResults

Clear classic GP effectsClear classic GP effects– First pass timeFirst pass time

ME of struct. on NP1; 72ms longer when ME of struct. on NP1; 72ms longer when non-GPnon-GP

ME of struct. on disambiguation; 56ms ME of struct. on disambiguation; 56ms longer when GP longer when GP

ME of NP2 on NP2; 158ms longer when ME of NP2 on NP2; 158ms longer when mismatchedmismatched

New ResultsNew Results

Go Past time (includes re-fixations Go Past time (includes re-fixations after leftward regressions)after leftward regressions)– ME of struct. on disambiguation; 264ms ME of struct. on disambiguation; 264ms

longer when GPlonger when GP– ME of struct. on NP2; 86ms longer when ME of struct. on NP2; 86ms longer when

GPGP– ME of NP2 on NP2; 248ms longer when ME of NP2 on NP2; 248ms longer when

mismatchedmismatched– Marg. ME Marg. ME (p (p = = ..081) by P of struct. on S2 081) by P of struct. on S2

opening regionopening region

SummarySummary

Robust GP effects in early and late measuresRobust GP effects in early and late measures

Clear indication that readers moved on to S2 Clear indication that readers moved on to S2 beforebefore structural work on S1 was completed structural work on S1 was completed

Lack of interaction suggests that processes Lack of interaction suggests that processes related to structural revision and lexical related to structural revision and lexical content are separate. S1 ambiguity lingers into content are separate. S1 ambiguity lingers into S2 & amplified by NP2, irrespective of match.S2 & amplified by NP2, irrespective of match.

What is “good enough” What is “good enough” processing?processing?

NOT “shallow” parsingNOT “shallow” parsing– In other words, not just lack of effortIn other words, not just lack of effort– Confidence ratings; downstream effects of GP structure Confidence ratings; downstream effects of GP structure

Results in SOME kind of underspecified Results in SOME kind of underspecified representationrepresentation– Which representation (syntax, semantics, both, other)?Which representation (syntax, semantics, both, other)?

Underspecification likely result of Incomplete Underspecification likely result of Incomplete Processing (=good enough)Processing (=good enough)– Interpretation formed before all sources of information are Interpretation formed before all sources of information are

available (some sources slowed by computational demands)available (some sources slowed by computational demands)– Processor moves on (even if some processes are still Processor moves on (even if some processes are still

running)running)

Christianson (in Christianson (in preparation)preparation)

Change detection paradigm Change detection paradigm (Sanford, et al., 2005)(Sanford, et al., 2005)

– Memory for text based on Memory for text based on representation constructed for it.representation constructed for it.

– Changes to text that are consistent with Changes to text that are consistent with representation should be harder to representation should be harder to detect.detect.

The cookout was going well so far. The cookout was going well so far. While Tom grilled the hot dog that While Tom grilled the hot dog that was long and fatty began to burn. was long and fatty began to burn. The burgers sure looked good, The burgers sure looked good, though.though.

The cookout was going well so far. While The cookout was going well so far. While

Tom grilled the hot dog that was long and Tom grilled the hot dog that was long and

fatty it began to burn. The burgers sure looked fatty it began to burn. The burgers sure looked good, though.good, though.

ConditionsConditions

Garden path vs. non-garden path Garden path vs. non-garden path (comma)(comma)– While Tom grilled, the hot dog that was While Tom grilled, the hot dog that was

long and fatty began to burn.long and fatty began to burn. NP-it vs. it-NPNP-it vs. it-NP

– While Tom grilled it the hot dog that was long and While Tom grilled it the hot dog that was long and fatty began to burn.fatty began to burn.

Results, Expt. 1

Sig. ME of structure & order; Sig. INTERACTION

SummarySummary

People more sensitive to changes in People more sensitive to changes in GP sentencesGP sentences– NOT “shallow” processing; processor NOT “shallow” processing; processor

notices the ambiguitynotices the ambiguity– Change acts like question in Change acts like question in

Christianson, et al (in press) and NP2 in Christianson, et al (in press) and NP2 in Christianson & SlatteryChristianson & Slattery Spurs processor to resolve lingering Spurs processor to resolve lingering

structural problem by some means, because structural problem by some means, because that information becomes critical for that information becomes critical for interpretive taskinterpretive task

However, significant interaction However, significant interaction (p (p = = ..018) suggests that in GP 018) suggests that in GP condition, sometimes the partial condition, sometimes the partial reanalysis proposed by Christianson reanalysis proposed by Christianson et al (2001) DOES take placeet al (2001) DOES take place– Two “hot dogs” in representation, Two “hot dogs” in representation,

congruent with addition of “it” in DO congruent with addition of “it” in DO position of subordinate clauseposition of subordinate clause

ConclusionConclusion Good enough processing results in Good enough processing results in

interpretations not faithful to the contentinterpretations not faithful to the content– Not previously noticed by researchers because Not previously noticed by researchers because

right questions not askedright questions not asked– Not usually noticed by people because usually Not usually noticed by people because usually

not critical for integration of later material (often not critical for integration of later material (often even incorrect interpretation can be plausibly even incorrect interpretation can be plausibly maintained in context)maintained in context)

Good enough, not just shallow Good enough, not just shallow – Processor actively tries to resolve, but may move Processor actively tries to resolve, but may move

on because resources are limited, and input is not on because resources are limited, and input is not – (The “Life is short!” model of sentence (The “Life is short!” model of sentence

processing)processing)

Implications Implications (psycholinguistic)(psycholinguistic)

Suggests different mechanisms for parser Suggests different mechanisms for parser and processorand processor– Parser worried about getting a licit syntactic Parser worried about getting a licit syntactic

structure (but might truncate the parse, too)structure (but might truncate the parse, too)– Processor worried about getting a plausible, Processor worried about getting a plausible,

contextually consistent interpretationcontextually consistent interpretation– Parser might be slowed down by ambiguitiesParser might be slowed down by ambiguities– Processor might run ahead and not check final Processor might run ahead and not check final

parse unless underspecified representation parse unless underspecified representation results in an interpretation that doesn’t fit in results in an interpretation that doesn’t fit in contextcontext

Implications (general)Implications (general) Extent to which parser keeps working or Extent to which parser keeps working or

processor can look back at results probably processor can look back at results probably depends on STM capacitydepends on STM capacity

STM or other individual differences likely STM or other individual differences likely predictive of eventual interpretation predictive of eventual interpretation accuracyaccuracy

Over-reliance of processor on top-down Over-reliance of processor on top-down (semantic, discourse) information (perhaps (semantic, discourse) information (perhaps compensatory) might accentuate compensatory) might accentuate misinterpretations (whether it affects misinterpretations (whether it affects syntactic parse or not)syntactic parse or not)– Older readers, L2 readers, struggling readers, Older readers, L2 readers, struggling readers,

young readersyoung readers

Good enough usually good enough, Good enough usually good enough, but not always.but not always.

Misinterpretations informative for Misinterpretations informative for theoriststheorists– can be predicted and manipulated can be predicted and manipulated

consistently enough to be exploited in consistently enough to be exploited in reading research and instruction (e.g., reading research and instruction (e.g., to increase meta-linguistic awareness)to increase meta-linguistic awareness)

Thank you!Thank you!